sigma_list_files

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the filter behavior and allowed type values, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, scope (e.g., only immediate children), or result structure. This is adequate given the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. Every word contributes: it states the resource, action, and optional filter criteria. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool (two optional filters, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the essential filtering options. It could mention whether the list is recursive or only immediate children, but that is likely inferable from context or the output schema. Overall, it's complete for a basic list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: parentId (mapped to parent_id) and type (mapped to type_filter), including the allowed type values. It doesn't elaborate on what parentId refers to (e.g., folder ID), but the mapping is understandable and the type enum is explicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists files/folders and mentions optional filters, using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sigma_list_all_files, which likely has a broader scope, but the core purpose is clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_list_all_files or sigma_list_workbooks. It lacks any exclusions or context for choosing this tool, such as whether it lists only top-level items or all descendants.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.